Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I am pleased to offer this amendment with my colleagues, Senator Graham of South Carolina and Senator Lieberman. This amendment would basically do two things. Today, we have before us a supplemental appropriations bill. A large amount of the money in this bill is for our military operations and other operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This amendment is being offered without criticism. But, in fact, what we have today is a major shift in our policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I doubt that there is a person in this body who can clearly articulate what our mission is in these two countries, to the standpoint of actually laying out objectives. I think many Senators were part of a luncheon we had 2 weeks ago where, when the President of Afghanistan was asked what our mission was in Afghanistan, he could not articulate in any way that was comprehendible what our mission was in that country. I do not offer those comments again in criticism. I realize there are a lot of changes underway. I realize there is going to be a new general on the ground; possibly it will take until August for that confirmation to take place. I realize this administration is working with many agencies in trying to develop a plan that will be effective in this country. If one were to listen to the state of the mission, one would think our mission is very similar in Afghanistan to that of Iraq, minus actually having a democratically functioning government. I know all of us have had some concerns about some of the issues within Government in both countries and where Government funding actually ends up. So this is an amendment, a bipartisan amendment, that is being put forth asking the administration to do two things: Asking that we, in essence, all understand this policy so that, in fact, we have a policy that is equal to the tremendous sacrifice our men and women in uniform are putting forth on our behalf and do so daily. First of all, the amendment would require the President to submit to Congress a clear statement of objectives for Afghanistan and Pakistan and the benchmarks that will be used to quantify progress toward achieving those objectives. Again, this is not tying their hands. There are no timetables that say certain things have to happen by a certain time. This is, in essence, asking the administration to lay out to us so we all know and can articulate those and, hopefully, even our men and women in the field can articulate these, to lay those out in a way by which we can understand the benchmarks. Then, secondly, it asks that they come before us and actually give us quarterly updates, after a period of time, toward those objectives and how they are actually progressing. I would hope that actually, at some point, the managers of the bill might be able to even accept this by unanimous consent because I cannot imagine why anybody in this body would want to vote the billions and billions of dollars toward these efforts that we rightfully are supporting today--do not get me wrong, but I cannot imagine not wanting the administration to come back to us with these benchmarks and these objectives so we all can measure our progress there. We have been there 8 years. Our men and women in uniform have given and given and given; many have lost their lives, many have lost limbs. It would seem to me that everyone in this body, regardless of which side of the aisle they are on, would want to clearly understand what our mission is there and our way of evaluating that. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on amendment No. 1019. Let me start by saying I appreciate the work Senators Dodd and Shelby have done to bring the bill to the floor. I know they are trying to solve a number of problems that exist right now as relates to homeowners in our country trying to reposition where they are with their homes. I know there are a number of issues with HOPE for Homeowners that was passed last summer that they are trying to solve. I say to the Senator from Connecticut, I appreciate his efforts. I appreciate the efforts of Senator Shelby. The amendment I am offering and on which we will be voting tries to make the safe harbor arrangement that exists in this bill something that is fair to all folks involved in these loans. Most people are aware of pooling arrangements where, in essence, there are servicers who take care of the indebtedness against a homeowner. They pool these together through the securitization that has taken place in the past in order to deal with homeowners. There has been great difficulty in the past in trying to move programs along so we can modify these mortgages. The problem with this bill, though, is that under the safe harbor arrangement that has been put in place, it does not necessarily do what is best for the homeowner and doesn't necessarily do what is best for the investors, as many Americans have these in their 401(k)s. What it does do is an excellent job of taking care of the large four banks that do the bulk of the servicing: J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and Bank of America. This bill actually incents them. We are paying them money to do what is in their best interest. Most of these large banks actually hold the second mortgages, not the first mortgages. The first mortgages are the ones I think most of us realize have priority. Those are the loans that allowed you to go into and actually purchase the home in the first place. Then these banks came along, in some cases unwittingly, and participated in predatory- type lending. So these banks, in essence, own most of the second mortgages, the home equity loans. They also own a huge portion of the credit card debt that many of these consumers have. We are paying them in this bill to actually deal with these mortgages in a way that is in their best interest. They have the lesser amount of security, but they also have built-in conflicts of interest where, in essence, if they can do things to cause these consumers to have the secondary debt taken care of, it is in their best interest to do that. I think this is a huge problem. I find it incredible that we, in essence, in this body would pass a bill where we, in essence, are paying the fox to guard a chicken house that is in their best interest. That is what this bill does. What our amendment would do is say to these servicers, these people who are taking care of these mortgages, which is servicing the first and second mortgage--again, them owning mostly the second mortgages-- what it would do is say they have to look at all options, not just the ones cited in the bill. For instance, if a homeowner would be better served by having forbearance, meaning for reduction of principal or something such as that, or maybe a short sale, something else that might be in much better stead for the homeowner and for the investor, the servicer doesn't have to do that. All the servicer has to do in this bill is look at one of two programs--the Obama administration's modification program or the HOPE for Homeowners modification program, just one, not both--and compare it to foreclosure. If it is better off going with one of these two programs, they move it into those programs, even though it may not be in the homeowner's best interest and even though it may not be in those many Americans across our country who have these first mortgages in their 401(k)s, not in their best interest. Typically, though, it is going to be in the servicers' best interest, these four large banks that are being paid money by this bill to actually pursue this servicing in a manner that is in their best interest. I hope everyone will join me in asking these servicers to not just look at what is in their best interest but to actually first look and see what is in the best interest of those people who own the first mortgages and for those people who actually are in these homes who are trying to stay in these homes. There are provisions here that actually make it worse for the homeowner, in that, basically, much of the debt gets pushed off into 5 years and actually defers their paying, actually makes their situation even worse than it is today. But in the short term, it might make it better, again, for these four large banks. I am somewhat surprised the sponsors of this bill, whom I have a lot of respect for and work with on a number of issues, are not accepting this commonsense amendment, which says to these servicers, who have a contract, by the way, for those people whom they are servicing these mortgages for, to say that they have to look at everybody's best interest, not their own self-interest, prior to making changes in these mortgages. It is pretty astounding to me. I am still not sure I understand. Let me make one other point. Last week we, as a body, both sides of the aisle in a bipartisan way, turned away something called cram-down, which gave judges around the country the ability to change the terms of a first mortgage. This body, in a bipartisan way, said we should not be letting the courts change contracts. That is something that is foreign to an American way of thinking. By the way, courts, at least judges, are appointed or elected. They are in positions of public service. What this bill does instead is, it pays servicers, many of which have contributed to this problem in a huge way, to do things that in many cases are in their own self-interest, breaking contract law, and in many cases hurting the homeowner and hurting the investors. I hope everybody will see the commonsense nature of this amendment. I hope we can pass this amendment and cause the work that Senators Dodd and Shelby have done to improve the situation that exists, to make it even fairer to all involved.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Florida, who has served our country well both as a Senator but also as Secretary of HUD and has tremendous amounts of experience in this area. We disagree on this issue. My amendment does not just seek to do what is best for the investor. It seeks to do what is best for the homeowner and asks the servicer to not just compare one alternative to foreclosure but an array of alternatives to foreclosure. I have to tell you, I know of people in financial distress, as most of us do. I think I would like for these major banks that basically are servicing credit card debt and home equity loans, I would like for them to have to look after the interests of the homeowner and the investor in every way they can prior to moving to foreclosure. That is what this amendment does. It is a commonsense amendment. I think we have moved ourselves into a situation now that is potentially worse, as I said before, than what we did the other day, which was that the other day we rejected giving judges the ability to unilaterally change contracts. Now we are going to be paying, in large portions, the four largest banks in the country, we are going to be paying them our money, taxpayer money to do things that in many cases are in their best interest and not in the homeowner's best interest and the investor's best interest. I find that problematic. In years to come, if this legislation passes without this amendment, we are going to look back and realize we did some things that may have sounded great in the middle of a crisis but we did some things that 4 or 5 years from now we are going to wake up and realize have done great harm to the very homeowners this bill seeks to help. Mr. President, I thank you for the time. I thank the Senator from Florida and the Senator from Connecticut for the thoughtful conversations they have put forth. I think this legislation is flawed. I know there are some other components of this bill that are very good. As a matter of fact, I have authored, with the major proponent, the Senator from Connecticut, large portions of this bill. But this safe harbor agreement has many problems. I think it is a shame, if this amendment is not adopted, we are going to end up with a piece of legislation that does a lot of good but also does a lot of harm and sets precedents in this country we are going to live to regret. Mr. President, I yield my time.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, unless I am rebutted, this will be my final point. I would like to make a point that from the standpoint of the homeowner, in many cases, they would be much better off if they were given the opportunity to refinance, given the opportunity to refinance at a lower rate and a longer amortization with organizations that provide that opportunity today. The servicer has no obligation to even look at a refinancing such as that, for which in many cases the homeowner and the investor would be better off. That is not a part of this bill. I find that to be a major flaw. I yield my time, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Florida for being so patient.

Mr. CORKER. Certainly. Yes.

Mr. CORKER. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me make one more point. I will be brief.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to make it clear because I think the Senator from Connecticut, in doing a good job in talking about his position, made it seem as if we are against loan modifications. Look, there were 134,000 loan modifications last month. I am all for loan modifications. But what this bill does now is it gives those four largest banks, and many others, the ability--we are paying them, we are giving them the ability to do things that are in their self-interest and not in the homeowners' self-interest--let me say that one more time: not in the homeowners' self-interest--and be totally obligation free, with no legal recourse whatsoever against them. What this amendment does is say we are giving them safe harbor, but they have to look at a variety of ways to make sure the homeowner and the investor both are being treated fairly. This bill is very narrow. It allows them to wash their hands and do things that are in their best interest alone, and we are paying them to do that with no legal recourse. To me, that is far, far, far more than we should be doing in legislation such as this. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, if the Senator from Florida would allow me to speak for 1 minute.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. OK. I thank my friend from Connecticut.

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I have a sense the merits of this amendment are so great that it will be accepted universally.

Mr. CORKER. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I do not want to make any comments. I just want to call it up.

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1019.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the appropriations process we conduct here in the Senate, and have come here, as you have, in the not too distant past and been absolutely amazed by the lack of fiscal discipline that exists here in Washington. I know the Presiding Officer probably shares some of my views about the way we go through the appropriations process and the fact that at the end of the year, on many occasions, we end up with a large omnibus bill that does not give the American public, certainly not Senators and House Members, the ability to actually go through this process in a thoughtful way that respects the fact that these are our citizens' resources which we tend to bulk together in a way that it is not transparent. Our President, on March 11--and I agree with him very much on this-- said that future spending bills should be debated and voted on in an orderly way and sent to his desk without delay or obstruction so we don't face another massive last-minute omnibus bill like this one--and he was talking about the bill that we passed. I could not agree more with the President in that regard. I think what we have seen is that we have not had the ability to examine the thousands of earmarks that are placed in these bills. We have not had a process that is transparent. In an effort to aid this process in such a manner that we do have some degree of fiscal discipline in this body, 41 Republican Senators have signed a letter which states that we believe that by the August recess at least eight appropriations bills should be voted on in singular fashion--eight single bills by the August recess. This body has on many occasions taken up each appropriations bill by itself, fully debated it, discussed the earmarks, discussed the things that cause these bills not to be appropriate, had amendments, and passed these bills out of the Senate. So these 41 Republicans stand together urging the leader of the Senate, urging the Appropriations Committee to follow this best way of doing business, and that is to vote on these bills individually. Obviously, we hope this occurs. And certainly as part of the Senate process, in the event that we are not able to meet those objectives, we will avail ourselves of all appropriate procedural methods to ensure that is the case. Mr. President, I thank you for the time this morning, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter signed by all 41 Republican Senators.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak regarding amendment No. 688, the Crapo-Corker amendment. I say to the Senator from Michigan, this is an opportunity for us all to say yes. This is an amendment that is very important to people all across the country. What this amendment does is it gives the FDIC the ability to have a line of credit that today is at $30 billion, and it gives them a line of credit up to $100 billion. The FDIC was put in place in 1991 when banking assets in our country were at $4.5 trillion. Today, bank assets in our country total almost $14.7 trillion. We have an FDIC today that is hamstrung because of the financial crisis in which we find ourselves. So this amendment would raise that line of credit from $30 billion, which is an ancient establishment, to $100 billion. Secondly, what it would do is give the FDIC--with certain signatures required from the Fed, from the Treasury, from others--access to a $500 billion line of credit in the event they need it to seize an institution to protect depositors. So this does two things. To make this relevant to people who will be voting on this amendment, hopefully, this afternoon, I think all of my colleagues know the FDIC has just put in place a special assessment. My guess is every person in this body has heard from community bankers and regional bankers and even larger establishments about this special assessment. I know in Tennessee, many of the community banks actually would have to spend an entire quarter's earnings to pay this special assessment. So by doing what we are doing in this amendment, we actually give the FDIC time to amortize that special assessment over a number of years which will cause it to be far more palatable for community bankers, in particular, who have had nothing whatsoever to do with the financial crisis in which we find ourselves. Secondly--and I think this ought to be equally important to people here--this gives the FDIC the ability to move into an organization quickly and to seize it to protect depositors' accounts. I know right now the fund is running thin. My guess is that could affect--and actually the FDIC has lobbied for this--this might affect future actions if they don't feel as though they have the resources necessary to go into an organization to do the things they need to do to make sure depositors are protected. This action is action for which I would imagine we could almost get unanimous support. As a matter of fact, my guess is we could voice vote this. As a matter of fact, I hope that will occur this afternoon. In the past, this legislation has been held hostage to what is called the cram-down provision. The cram-down provision has been before this body. It was defeated overwhelmingly. Numbers of Democrats thought it was bad legislation. There have been a few Senators who have tried to attach cram-down to this legislation that we will be voting on this afternoon and tried to extort action on cram-down by virtue of holding this very good piece of policy at bay. It is my hope this afternoon that we will do something that is very important, especially to community bankers across the country but also to depositors to make sure we have the ability to protect them: that the FDIC has the ability to move quickly. Move aside from extortionary politics and move toward doing something that is good for our country, good for community bankers, and certainly very good for depositors all across this country. Mr. President, I thank you for this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wonder if I may have permission to ask the Senator from Connecticut a question. Mr. President, I stepped in after the dialogue was taking place on the floor. My understanding is that the Crapo amendment that actually is part of the original bill--that you are very much a part of and have allowed--is going to come up in an expeditious manner. I wonder if we have a commitment from the chairman, whom I respect and certainly enjoy working with very much, that it come up unattached to a cram-down so that we don't have the extortion of that issue being attached to this. I didn't hear that, so I wanted to know if that was also part of the commitment.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, if I could have just 30 seconds, I certainly thank the Senator from Connecticut and, again, will certainly work with him. I might add that the strong feelings that are felt sort of go in this manner: that there is unanimous or overwhelming support for this particular provision, and this body is very divided on this other issue. So it does, in effect, keep us from having a very good policy that is very much supported from becoming law. It is broken down by the fact we have tremendous dissension in this body--or let me say this: a difference of opinion in this body--over the cram-down issue. But that is stating the obvious, and I am sure the American public understands that. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I will yield to the Senator from Illinois. Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. 541 and H.R. 1106

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 541, a Dodd-Crapo bill, which would increase the borrowing authority of the FDIC, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read the third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. CORKER. I object to this, Mr. President. As was stated, we have a bipartisan solution that many banks across the country are clamoring for--the banking system is clamoring for. This bill I tried to call up would pass overwhelmingly in this body. The Senator from Illinois--and I appreciate his persistence--has continued to pursue this cram-down bill, which meets with tremendous opposition in this body. I just hate that what we are doing is in essence extorting community banks and extorting credit unions all across this country to provisions that everyone knows are very problematic. I object, and I hope the Senator from Illinois will allow us, at some point soon, to take up this issue that is very important to credit unions, to community banks, to institutions across this country. As a result, it is very important to the men and women all across this country who are concerned about their jobs, concerned about credit. This is something we can do together to change the atmosphere of the banking community and change our country in the process. But it appears we are not going to have that opportunity today. I hope the Senator from Illinois will give us that opportunity in the near future.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, did the Chair say ``in opposition''?

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have come down to speak on this stimulus package before us, and I want to thank especially the colleagues on this side of the aisle for talking about this particular package. I think most people in the country realize that housing and credit are the foundations of this country which need to be stabilized so that we can build our economy again. I know there are a number of people on both sides of the aisle who are working in a gang mentality right now, if you will, to try to make this package better, and I certainly applaud people who work together in a bipartisan way to try to solve problems. In this particular case, though, this stimulus package is nothing short of a disaster. I think to try to make it 10 percent better, while admirable, is not really doing our country the justice it deserves. I am one of those people, I guess, who likes to understand all the problems together we are facing before taking action on one specific aspect. I want to understand everything as it is. And I know the administration is coming forth in the next week or so to talk about their solution to our financial crisis. I know there are many people in this country who believe we have trillions of dollars of losses still left in our financial system before we hit bottom. I think everybody in our country realizes that as housing continues to drop, it is not just hurting our economy directly, it is also dragging our financial system down. So, again, I appreciate those folks who are trying to work together to make this bill, which is a disaster, in my opinion, slightly better. I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense for us as a country to just wait for a week or two to hear the rest of the administration's plan as it relates to solving this problem. I think for us to rush out and put forth $1 trillion on spending on top of a projected $1 trillion deficit, without fully understanding the other issues our country faces and how the administration plans to deal with these other issues, is incredibly imprudent. It would be like a business person in a company knowing they have a crisis at hand, and not fully understanding what all those components are, and sort of throwing the whole shooting match into one of those, knowing there are other things coming they haven't thought about. We have Governors around the country from both sides of the aisle who are talking with us about what this is going to do to disrupt their States because so much of this spending is programmatic. It has nothing whatsoever to do with creating jobs. I have to be honest, I may be rare, but I don't understand how any of us could seriously talk about aid to States when our Federal Government is in the situation it is today. States, generally speaking, run their States in appropriate ways. But, truly, Governors on both sides of the aisle are wondering what they are going to do to the people coming after them because we are building this big fire hose of money coming into the States that they have to spend in stovepipe ways that are going to cause their successors to truly be in a very difficult situation. Look, there are people on both sides of the aisle uneasy about this. That is why this gang has been formed because there is tremendous unease, even on the other side of the aisle, on this package. Most people support this--well, I will not say that--many people, I believe, are supporting this package to show support for this new President whom we all want to see do well. We all want to see him be successful. I have had friends in life who out of friendship to me supported something I was doing, when I would have much preferred, after the fact, their sharing with me that what I was about to do was a really terrible idea. Instead, they just went along, and I ended up probably not doing as well as I might have done. I think there is tremendous unease in this body with this package, and I think there are a lot of people who are holding their nose and supporting it out of support for this President whom we all want to lead our country and this world successfully. I just urge people on both sides of the aisle to think about this, to vote their conscience, and not to just go along but, in fact, to stop and pause and look at all the issues we are going to be dealing with. Let's ask the administration to come forth and talk to us about the pricetag of dealing appropriately with the credit markets, with housing, and with, maybe, some directed spending on infrastructure or something that is not programmatic and would not disrupt the way State governments run. Mr. President, I thank you for the time, but I feel as though our country is getting ready to do something we will regret and generations after us will regret. So I am concerned about where we are as a country with our economy, and I feel as if we are using resources today so inappropriately when we are going to need those resources down the road. Mr. President, I yield the floor.